Recently, the Jharkhand High Court has once again turned its attention to the gaps in official data. During the latest hearing in an ongoing public interest litigation, the Bench expressed concern that crucial information regarding deaths occurring in police control and during transit still remained outside the record.
The case arose from a public interest petition seeking transparency and accountability in reporting deaths occurring inside prisons as well as during judicial or police custody. Earlier, the Court had required the Home Department to submit an affidavit detailing every custodial death in prison or judicial custody from 2018 onwards, including whether each incident had been reported to the Magistrate for a statutory inquiry under Section 176(1-A) CrPC, 1973 or Section 196(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
When the matter returned to Court in November 2025, the affidavit placed on record addressed only prison and judicial custody deaths because that had been the precise scope of the earlier direction. Consequently, information relating to deaths in police custody or during police transit, which form a distinct category, was not provided.
It was pointed out before the Bench that although the previous order had been complied with, the disclosed information was incomplete since it did not cover police custody or transit-related fatalities. These incidents, often more sensitive and requiring heightened oversight, remained unaccounted for in the affidavit already submitted.
The Petitioner stressed that accurate and comprehensive reporting of all categories of custodial deaths is essential for judicial monitoring, and that fragmented data defeats the purpose of the PIL.
The Bench noted that the affidavit filed by the Principal Secretary responded strictly to the earlier order, which had sought data only on deaths in prison or judicial custody. As a result, the omission of police-custody and transit-related deaths was a direct consequence of the limited earlier direction.
Taking note of this gap, the Court observed that the matter required fuller disclosure. It is remarked that accurate classification of custodial deaths is critical, especially because deaths occurring in police control or in transit are governed by mandatory procedural safeguards and require immediate oversight by a Magistrate.
Referring to the affidavit before it, the Court stated that the earlier instructions “obviously” could not have covered deaths that happened outside the prison framework, and hence a fresh disclosure was necessary.
The High Court directed the Principal Secretary of the Home, Prison and Disaster Management Department to file a fresh personal affidavit covering all deaths in police custody and during police transit. The affidavit must be filed within three weeks, and the matter has been scheduled for further consideration on 18 December 2025.
Case Title: Md Mumtaz Ansari V. State of Jharkhand and Others
Case No.: W.P. (PIL) No. 1218 of 2022
Coram: Hon’ble Mr Chief Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan and Hon’ble Mr Justice Rajesh Shankar
Counsel for the Petitioner: Adv. Shadab Ansari,
Counsel for the Respondent: A.C. to A.A.G.-II Gaurav Raj
Read Judgement @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
